Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This is not true, many commercial packages can be open source without the freedom to redistribute.



The Open Source Definition - item 1 is "Free Redistribution":

https://opensource.org/osd

Edit: now I see a sibling already said the same thing but was inexplicably downvoted despite being factually correct and thus hard to read.


People not only have forgotten what "open source" means, some are also violently opposed to being told it means something other than whatever personal definition of it they have. :-)


And this is why I keep repeating the same thing. Because people have forgotten that open source also means it must have the freedom redistribute. It is point 1:

https://opensource.org/osd

And we have also forgotten that open source was a term coined in 1998 (as mentioned by rms in the interview) by the Open Source Initiative and was intended to be a synonym for free software that de-emphasised the freedom part:

http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot...




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: